I’d like to take some time to talk about the poor. Solving poverty was the state function that was the hardest for me to give up. So, for those who still think that the best way help the poor is to elect a class of unaccountable people, who fleece our wealth at gunpoint, I’d like to tell you about Larry Moore.
For six years Larry was a homeless drunk, living under a bridge and begging on the street. Last September Larry acquired his own shoeshine stand, got himself a nice looking suit and starting earning $7 a shine. Business was so successful that the SF Chronicle called him, “the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city” last March (1). When they interviewed him he said, “I used to push a shopping cart in this town. Now I have my own business. I feel blessed every day!” You see Larry was on his way to earning the $600 he needed to rent an apartment.
Then some bureaucrat from the Department of Public Works saw the article and sought out Larry to inform him that he needed to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit. A spokesbureaucrat from Public Works, said the department’s contact with Larry was meant to be, “educational.” Bollocks! So, Larry, this saint, dutifully handed over almost every penny he’d saved. Just one problem, Larry doesn't have a valid California ID, and had to send away for a replacement birth certificate from Kansas (2).
When news of this bureaucratic SNAFU reached the public hundreds of people lined up for blocks with shoes in hand. After earning nearly $1,000 Larry was able to pay off the state, and pay his way into some temporary housing (3). Mabruk Larry!
Larry's story exemplifies perfectly exactly how the state (A monopoly on coercive violence) fails to help the poor, and the fair market (the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges) absolutely succeeds. Let me explain.
America has one of the most bloated federal welfare programs in the world. California is likely the most socialist state in the union. San Francisco is the most lefty pinko city in the state. If the state was going to solve poverty anywhere it would be here. But the state did nothing for Larry, while well intending strangers did. At the very bottom, it is voluntary interaction, not coercive redistribution, that kept Larry fed for 6 years. So, despite the ever increasing taxation, the market is still providing for the poor. And, a coercive tax takes money out of the safety net that works and puts it into the safety net that fails.
And now the statist is screaming, “but without the government the poor will starve in the streets!” To which I respond, “Is there some reason why you think people wouldn't give money to the charity, but would vote for a bureaucrat to take it from them by force?” The fact that nearly every person instantly responds, "What about the poor!" proves that helping the poor is a nearly universal value in our society. If it's a universal value we don't need to be forced. If it isn't a universal value a majority isn’t going to vote for it. The very fact that people vote for welfare programs tells me that people would help the poor without coercion.
Then enters the shoeshine stand. Entrepreneurship is how the fair market raises the poor out of the safety net. In a fair market absolutely everyone has value and can create wealth from just a minimum of creativity and ambition. Statism tells us that some people are worthless. By imposing a minimum wage the centrally planned economy raises the barrier of entry into the market and prevents people like Larry from participating. People in Larry's situation have value, and are prevented from accessing that value because they have dropped beneath the minimum wage. Were it not for minimum wage laws Larry would have been able prove his value to an employer by offering to work for a reduced starting wage. He could have swept hair in a barber shop for $4 and hour and earned $600 in less than two months. But no employer is going to risk $8 dollars an hour, and all the taxes, and liability that come with employing someone, on a homeless drunk. So, despite the raised barrier to entry, the market is still finding value in the poor who have an entrepreneurial spirit. And, a coercive minimum wage takes jobs away from people who can prove their value in the fair market and gives jobs to bureaucrats who cannot prove their value.
And now the little statist is screaming, “but without government greedy capitalists will exploit the workers!” To which I respond, ”Is there some difference between a capitalists and a bureaucrat? What makes you think that a business owner, who interacts with people on a voluntary basis, must prove the value of their services, and must maintain a positive reputation would exploit people more than a bureaucrat, who wields coercive force, has a monopoly on his services, and is only accountable to the public once in an election cycle?” In my experience violent people with no competition or liability are not more virtuous. I mean, the fair market boycotts products for exploiting dolphins.
Then enters the state. Can you imagine! The government completely ignores Larry for six years and then when it learns of his success it swoops in and takes every penny. Just when he was on the verge of actually lifting himself off the street he's attacked by the third head of the hydra. Licensing laws. And I'm not sure what the reason for the "sidewalk vendor permit" is, but I know why it's important to the Department of Public Works. Because everyone, the capitalist, the bureaucrat, the rich, the poor, you, me, Barry Obama, EVERYONE acts upon market incentives. And the state acquires revenue through licensing laws. Plain and simple. The difference however is that the state is not required to prove it's value. It is a monopoly willing to extort $491 from every sidewalk vendor, effectively keeping the poor poor.
And now the little statist is screaming, "..." Nothing. And I think that's kind of funny. Because what's he going to say? "Without the government poor people will all be selling stuff on the street! They'll be providing value in the market, earning wealth, satisfying customers, and improving their condition!" And this is always the end result of any discussion about coercive violence. Eventually the statist runs out of arguments and has nothing left but irrational preference, which is a dangerous motivation when people's lives are at stake.
Then enters the market. Larry was not saved by the state. Larry was saved by the market. Hundreds of people voluntarily getting their shoes shined. Because the fair market is not only heartless capitalism. The fair market is the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges. And in the fair market, in the hearts of people, the poor have value, charity has value, Larry has value. And all that it takes for good to prevail to for people to live without coercion.
So I hope this clears things up. Everything right and true is from Allah. Any mistakes are from myself. And I hope you'll go to the corner of New Montgomery and Market Street in San Francsico and get your shoes shined by Larry Moore, the best-dressed shoe shine man in San Francisco.
1-
Shoeshine man fashioning a better life2-
Bureaucrat scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner3-
SF's Homeless 'Shoeshine Man' Back In Business
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: What about the Poor?! (Read 16037 times)